Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33019639›Full record

ReviewPolymers2020

Bioprintability: Physiomechanical and Biological Requirements of Materials for 3D Bioprinting Processes.

Andrea S Theus, Liqun Ning, Boeun Hwang, Carmen Gil, Shuai Chen, Allison Wombwell, Riya Mehta, Vahid Serpooshan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Beyond graphene: the MXene era in bioprinting.Biomedical engineering online · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Andrea S TheusDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Liqun NingDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Boeun HwangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Carmen GilDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Shuai ChenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Allison WombwellDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Riya MehtaDepartment of Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Vahid SerpooshanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is an additive manufacturing process that utilizes various biomaterials that either contain or interact with living cells and biological systems with the goal of fabricating functional tissue or organ mimics, which will be referred to as bioinks. These bioinks are typically hydrogel-based hybrid systems with many specific features and requirements. The characterizing and fine tuning of bioink properties before, during, and after printing are therefore essential in developing reproducible and stable bioprinted constructs. To date, myriad computational methods, mechanical testing, and rheological evaluations have been used to predict, measure, and optimize bioinks properties and their printability, but none are properly standardized. There is a lack of robust universal guidelines in the field for the evaluation and quantification of bioprintability. In this review, we introduced the concept of bioprintability and discussed the significant roles of various physiomechanical and biological processes in bioprinting fidelity. Furthermore, different quantitative and qualitative methodologies used to assess bioprintability will be reviewed, with a focus on the processes related to pre, during, and post printing. Establishing fully characterized, functional bioink solutions would be a big step towards the effective clinical applications of bioprinted products.

Indexed as

bioinkbioprintabilitybioprintingextrusionhydrogelprintabilityprinting fidelitytissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID33019639
PMCPMC7599870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.